In this Southern State, Students Might Be Able Pack Something with a Bit More “Power” in Their Bags

February 24th, 2015 | by Guest
In this Southern State, Students Might Be Able Pack Something with a Bit More “Power” in Their Bags
2nd Amendment
310

244022_sLiberals are going to have a heart attack if this law goes through.

The sunshine state, good ole’ Florida, is thinking about relaxing gun laws just a little bit more than they already are (Florida has some of the least strict gun laws in the nation).

IJ review writes:

If some in the Florida legislature get their way, students might be carrying more than just books in their backpacks.

Since the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 107 school shootings in America. Florida is no stranger to this.

In 2013, James Oliver Seevakumaran of the University of Central Florida (UCF) pulled down the fire alarm of his on-campus apartment with the intent of shooting the nearly 500 students who rushed out of the building for safety.

One year later, hundreds of Florida State University (FSU) students huddled tightly together in the aisles of their campus library, after an alumnus opened fire. Three were injured– all students.

The Florida legislature is taking up the issue of guns on campus this year, but not in the direction some would think. Florida’s concealed-carry gun permit laws currently restrict the right to carry guns on college campuses. HB 4005 and SB 176 would eliminate this exemption, allowing firearms to be present on the state’s 12 university campuses.

Those who support campus carry argue that it supports students safety. Guns on campus means students are better equipped to protect themselves. Marion Hammer, National Rifle Association lobbyist put it this way:

“The plain truth is that campuses are not safe. They are gun-free zones where murderers, rapists, terrorists, crazies may commit crime without fear of being harmed by their victims.”

Educational officials in Florida, though, don’t necessarily agree. The Board of Governors of the State University System, university police chiefs, and presidents of the individual universities have all joined in opposition to these bills.

With the problems of violence, alcoholism, and high suicide rates on college campuses, they argue, is now really the time to let more guns loose on campus?

Marjorie Sanfilippo, a professor of psychology at Eckerd College, opposes the bill, calling it dangerous:

“It is mere speculation and ignorance of statistical probability to assert that armed students are the reason why shootings don’t happen on campuses. Proponents will tell you that allowing conceal carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.”

If you’ll read over the last paragraph you’ll notice the little bit Marjorie Sanfillipino says about arming assailants too.

Well, maybe Marjorie didn’t pay attention very well while obtaining her psychology degree, but criminals are labeled criminals because they don’t feel the law applies to them in the slightest.

The only way people can protect themselves from those who are willing to break the law is to get the laws shaped in such a way they can defend themselves.

You’ll likely recall how most of the mass shootings that have taken place in the past 15 years have all been in “gun-free zones.”

And while liberals constantly complain conservatives are “dumb” and ignore the truth, how is it they can’t seem to get their heads around the reasonable right to protect yourself with a weapon no matter where you are?

What do you think of this story? Let us know in the comments below.

  • b4k9zp

    Second Amendment text: “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” PERIOD!

    All citizens have the unalienable right to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the military and police of the time, without the knowledge of any level of government and without having to get permission from any governmental entity or pay any kind of fee for the exercise of that right, anywhere they want to go, anytime they want to go there.

    • cardmaster1

      Amen!! THIS is the full intent of the Second Amendment-to make Sure that Citizens are as well armed as the Government so as to be able to Fight that government should it become Overbearing and Tyrannical-something we are already seeing.

      • Chessmaster

        This is why they want to take the people’s guns away.
        In an effort to make them defenseless against Government Tyranny.

        • Publius.Polis

          Who has taken who’s guns away? I keep hearing this but I don’t see it.

          • Chessmaster

            I didn’t say they did.
            I said they would like to do so.

          • Publius.Polis

            It is a wonderful thing to “know” another’s mind. Is this knowledge unique to yourself? They want to..thus they are evil. Your world construct may require the adjustment of a foil beanie.

          • independent thinker

            Is your ignorance willful or natural? Bloomberg, Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, obama, along with many others have all said they would like to end private ownership of guns.

          • Publius.Polis

            Yes, yes, yes there are people who have said any number of things about this. There are those who want us to be a christian country, there are those who want to eliminate the Dept. of Education, the Dept of Commerce and the Central bank. However, they keep bumping up against the constitution and an electorate who generally does not agree. Until these things are changed I think that you are safe from seizure and other draconian goofyness. However there is nothing to preclude the regulation of firearms in the constitution. I think that you may want to alter the congress’ responsibility to regulate the keeping of arms. You would have to change that also in order to have your perfect right. Since there are no “perfect” or unregulated rights you may be “peeing up a rope”.

          • independent thinker

            There is no Constitutional authority for the Department of (un)education, the Dept. of Commerce, or the central bank.
            I see you willfully chose to ignore the fact that there are states that are taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

          • Publius.Polis

            Congress has the responsibility to make law. What exactly do you image the constitution to be? These executive departments have each been established by congress. Did you miss this in civics class? You may not like it, but believing otherwise does not make it false. Could you find us an instance whaere a firearm has been taken from a law abiding citizen?

          • Dale Burris

            See reply above

          • paradoc2

            More selective ignorance – of course you never heard of the Heller or McDonald cases or what they imply. Registration leads to confiscation so why don’t you go troll up some other rope.

          • Publius.Polis

            Heller and McDonald was counted as a victory for gun rights by the NRA. So what the hell are you talking about? “these decisions recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense that is not dependent upon service in an organized militia, and that this right binds the acts of federal, state, and local officials.”

          • Dale Burris

            Have you heard of executive privilege and executive memos??? obama has been doing end runs around the Constitution ever since he TOOK office

          • Publius.Polis

            Have you hard of “every president since George Washington” has done this?

          • Dale Burris

            True all of the past Presidents have used these BUT not to the extent this one has and EVERYONE of his has been an end run around the Constitution such has TIRING to do away with the second amendment by banning ammunition which as most people know renders firearms useless, therefore this is just his way of FORCING his agenda on people that don’t agree with him!! Also HE has made MORE executive privilege and memos than ANY other President!!

          • Publius.Polis

            You are correct, They have not used it to the extent Obama has. However it is not to the “extent” you implied. Obama has used Executive priveledge one time, here are the rest (Eisenhower leads the pack with 44)

            In the
            context of privilege assertions by US Presidents, “In 1796,

            President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with the Kingdom of Great Britain.
            From

            President Thomas Jefferson continued the precedent for this in the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in1807.
            From

            Eisenhower would invoke the claim
            44 times between 1955 and 1960.

            From

            The Clinton
            administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions.

            From

            The Bush (W)
            administration invoked executive privilege on six occasions.

            From

            On June 20, 2012, President Barack Obama asserted
            executive privilege, his first to date.

            From

            Presidential determination, or presidential finding, are memoranda required by a statute and must be issued before certain actions are taken. For example, a presidential determination on the status of a country must be released before sanctions are imposed on the country.

            There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term “executive power” Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, else he faces impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President’s sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.

            An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.

            All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders that in general terms can be described as executive orders. Initially they took no set form. Consequently, such orders varied as to form and substance. The most famous Executive Order was by President Abraham Lincoln when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

            Obama has issued 194 executive orders
            GW Bush 291
            Clinton 364
            Bush (GHW) 176
            Reagan 391
            Carter 320
            Ford 169
            Nixon 346
            LBJ 325
            JFK 214
            Eisenhower 484
            Truman 907
            FDR 3522

          • Publius.Polis

            It is silly to imagine that this president is the first to use executive privilege or to sign executive memos to show his intent. This is what presidents (all of them) do. Good god, where have you been for the last 50 years?

          • Dale Burris

            See my reply of 24 minutes ago

          • b4k9zp

            There isn’t anything in the Constitution that supports having a “Department of Education”, despite your lies.

            The Department of Commerce does have a constituitonal basis, (Article I, section eight, paragraph three), but nothing in the “Commerce Clause” (paragraph three of Article I, section eight) can be used to destroy or limit the ability to exercise any right guaranteed by any part of the Constitution.

            Thomas Jefferson was strongly against any “Central Bank”, as was Andrew Jackson. That both were always in debt, and Jefferson (at least) died a pauper because he borrowed more money than his estate was worth, is probably the main reason Jefferson was against one.

            There is a short, twenty-seven word amendment in the Constitution that flatly prohibits any regulation or confiscation of firearms despite your lies. It is called the Second Amendment. It reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” A flat prohibition of any laws that regulate, deny, limit, or weaken the right of any individual who wishes to exercise that right to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the military and police of the time.

            Congress has no ability to regulate keeping of arms. It has no ability to prohibit it. It has no ability to prohibit open or concealed carry of any weapon. In short, it cannot do anything about that right. And under Article IV, section two, paragraph one, and Section one of Amendment fourteen, neither can any state or local government.

            Despite your lies, EVERY RIGHT in the bill of rights is a “perfect” or absolute right, for if government can “regulate” “violate”, or infringe on any right, then that right is no right at all, but a “privilege” that is usually denied to anyone except those who are capable of paying a large enough bribe to governmental officials.

          • tinkerunique

            CA (career) Senator Fine-stein is/has been anti-gun since Slick Willy was POTUS, AND she HAS a CC permit. -<( MORE "DON'T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY"

          • independent thinker

            Not only that but she made a big deal about turning in a handgun several years ago implying she was becoming disarmed. She conveniently “forgot” to mention she had other weapons she was licensed to carry.

          • b4k9zp

            She was anti-gun before BIll Clinton became POTUS. She was elected as an anti-gun mayor of san francisco after she witnessed Harvey Milk’s murder by his homosexual lover on the courthouse steps in San Francisco.

          • Chessmaster

            Hmmm,.. you seem to be out of place here.
            Why don’t you go Troll somewhere else.

          • independent thinker

            Pubic Phony just enjoys making a fool of her/him/its self.

          • Publius.Polis

            “pubic” is in the eye of the beholder. Look up! See the world.

          • Publius.Polis

            If you don’t appreciate discourse perhaps you might more profitably speak with your own echo.

          • Chessmaster

            Well, It would be more to my liking than trying to educate you about Gun Control.
            This will be my last comment bake to you, because I make it My Policy not to argue with Stupidity.
            Goodbye.

          • Publius.Polis

            And you bake so well and intelligently.

          • Publius.Polis

            I think that you meant to say that you make it youy policy not to argue stupidly since arguing with stupidity is a complete non-sequitor.

          • paradoc2

            Your selective ignorance says it all. Quit pretending there are no people intent upon taking and actually have taken peoples guns for no reason other than that they want to disarm Americans. Your ‘world construct’ lets hoplophobes trump our nations constitution. Don that dunce cap Publius, you earned it…

          • Publius.Polis

            Yet you persist in not supporting your argument. Who and when has someone taken your gun away? I think that you must be making this up from the whole cloth. Is this some sort of paranoid fantasy? Is there something in your mind that leads you to posit the existence of some apocalyptic reality on the the condition of American society? “They are coming after me, and I will fight them with my dying breath” is not a viable world view in that it is not real. So tell me again, who is coming for you weapons and why are you so afraid?

          • paradoc2

            They haven’t banned and given people in a certain state in America the ultimatum to turn in their semiautomatic rifles or face being felons for non-compliance? Yes they have whether you want to believe or deny it is your problem. It is public knowledge.
            That is a direct infringement on a constitutional right. I fear nothing and am every bit as steadfast in my right to keep and bear arms as you are in backing the usurpers of that right.
            Sorry I called you Pubis BTW, but beyond that I don’t need to apologize for a right that predates civilization – Molon Labe.

          • Publius.Polis

            Not a problem for me, “Publius” is a pen name, it is Latin and it means: of the public. “Polis” is Greek and it means the same thing. I just don’ share your fears about the big bad government. It is big but also amazingly stupid. I have so little contact with it as to make it largely irrelevant. I haven’t pissed in my pants in fear since my first firefight outside of Da Nang. (I was a combat medic). So nothing my government has done since has disturbed me to much. It is amazing what a little perspective can do.I do however reserve the privilege to attempt to make sense of what my fellow citizens say. That is why I’m having so much fun here.

          • b4k9zp

            The Democratic party has had platform planks seeking “stricter gun control laws” in its national party platform and all fifty state party platforms since 1968. Of course such language is democratic party code words for “stricter people control (slavery) laws” and always has been.

            Our nation was founded and the first shots of the American Revolution (on April 19, 1775) were fired because the British Royal governor did try to confiscate the privately owned CANNONS, and stands of muskets and rifles that were stored in PRIVATE HOMES in Lexington and Concord Massachusetts. The revolution began because American colonists refused to be slaves to the British crown any longer.

            Who is coming for weapons? People like you who hate freedom and love slavery.

          • sportshooter

            Up until this point they haven’t taken guns away but they are trying to circumvent the second amendment by trying to ban ammunition. The claims they make while attempting to ban M855 ammo have all been proven to be false and law enforcement doesn’t agree with them or support them in any way shape or form.

          • CommonSense4America

            They have confiscated guns in NYC and Ca..

          • tinkerunique

            AND Illinois

          • tinkerunique

            The plastic tip is one of the most common hunting cartriges used. Armor-piercing are solid steel with a copper jacket to NOT wear out the barrel.

          • sportshooter

            Police body armor is not made to withstand a high powered rifle bullet. that is why it is called soft body armor. The first step is to ban the M855 ammo and the move on to all other caliber ammo. The plastic tip only promotes faster expansion in a lead core bullet. It does nothing to promote piercing a bullet proof vest and it is a great hunting and target shooting bullet for that reason.

            P.S. The tip is not made from Teflon, which does pierce vests, but from plastic resin.

          • xandersaml

            They surely did after Katrina didn’t they?!

          • Lizard

            They are working 24-7 to ban Ar-15 Ammo // How about i take your steering wheel off car ..You get point right ??

          • CommonSense4America

            It would be more appropriate to ban gasoline. Ban fuel for the gun and cars.

          • tinkerunique

            COMPLETELY ! Spoons make people fat too.

          • independent thinker

            They are outlawing/taking guns away in several states. NY, Kalifornia, a couple of other eastern liberal led states.

          • CommonSense4America

            You don’t keep up with the news. It doesn’t fit with your anti gun agenda.

          • Publius.Polis

            I don’t have an anti-gun agenda. I have an anti stupid agenda. As a gun owner I have no problems with gun regulation. I don’t see the devil behind every bush, I am not afraid of my government or anyone. I don’t blame the president for all of my country’s failings, I don’t hate people because they might disagree with me. And I don’t believe that anyone has the right to do what ever the hell they want. I also know that simply because I have a thought does not mean it is a valuable one and need not always be expressed, would that everyone did this.

          • xandersaml

            So you have no problem with Big Brother government regulating away your God given rights? Makes no sense to me. Is there any part of life the government should not control?

          • Publius.Polis

            If everyone had a problem with government regulation I wonder how they would solve it? After more than 10,000 years of civilization we have evolved no reasonable alternative to regulating the rights of otherwise free individuals. The absence of regulation is tyrany. Tyrany has little to recommend it.

          • xandersaml

            The PRESENCE of (over) regulation is tyranny. I believe the (total) absence would be anarchy. I did not suggest a free for all with no rules.
            The 2nd Amendment is a clear acknowledgement of a God given right. A right, NOT from government so government should remain hands-off.
            My question was: Is there any part of life the government should not control? In your mind that is…

          • Publius.Polis

            Of course: thought, free expression, peaceful assembly, unlawful seizure of property, faith, hope, equal treatment and access as well as the rest of our rights embodied within the 1st 10 amendments to our constitution.

            But I continue to hold my view that any of these rights when used in their extremity to trump the rights of others can be, should be, and are regulated. This is the genius of our constitution. It is flexible and usable. And it is why the government has not lawfully usurped them. When it has acted unlawfully it has has been forced by due process to desist and where possible to compensate its victims.

            I agree with you about the 2nd amendment. It and the nine other amendments in the bill of rights are not granted to the people, they are reserved by the people. They thus trump the rest of the constitution in that they are in the words of the Declaration, “inalienable”.

            Although it is somewhat nuanced I think that tyranny means the rule of one oppressive individual. Anarchy would be the rule of no one. But in the context of my usage either one would be correct, but I like yours better.

          • xandersaml

            Our constitution is not flexible in the manner it is being flexed by regulations. There are procedures to follow in order to amend.
            Government nearly NEVER operates within the bounds of our constitution. Three letter agencies are running rampant on our liberties. EPA among the worst, but hardly alone. The legislative branch is supposed to “make laws” WITHIN the bounds of constitutional authority. The judiciary is NOT above the other branches either. And certainly not the executive branch. Hence, no monarch.
            Tyrtant = one oppressive individual. Tyranny = lack of liberty.

          • Publius.Polis

            The “flexibility” is in the regulatory responsibility of legally established governmental agencies. The Constitution mandates this, the Congress and the Executive provide it. Congress has the responsibility to make laws, the Executive has the responsibility to enact them. The Judiciary sees to their enforcement and determines their respective constitutional fitness. A law is not a constitutional amendment, it is a constitutional extension.

          • xandersaml

            No, policies and regulations are NOT statutes. Therein lies a huge problem. You have the EPA trying to tell everyone that mud puddles are theirs to regulate as they see fit. Should you dare cross them you can be treated as a criminal. Just because an agency was created legally ( I suspect many were NOT) does not mean anything they lay claim to is legal.
            Federalism is NOT the federal government being the All Powerful Entity.
            The USA has been bastardized beyond recognition by limiting liberty.
            Without honorable “servants” it all falls to sh…

          • Publius.Polis

            I did not mean to imply that they were statutes only that they are statutorily established. They are legal and they are enforceable under law. Your suspicions about the lack of legally constituted agencies is not correct. All of them have Congressional oversight and their regulations and budgets are submitted to Congress and must me approved.

          • xandersaml

            Last attempt: Un-elected bureaucrats ought not be making ANY rules and regulations which are enforceable as laws when they are not. Under the constitution, federal agencies were never meant to control the lands, education, transportation, energy, healthcare, social security, and MANY other aspects of life throughout the states.
            The role of the federal government is supposed to be severely limited. Read;
            The Declaration of Independence; The Constitution for the United States of America and especially The Federalist Papers. You will gain tremendous insight as to what the Founders supported. Over and out.

          • Publius.Polis

            Well, the founders are not here, and they weren’t prophets. So they left us with a living, breathing societal construct that has served us well for more than 200 years. Imagining that “Un-elected bureaucrats ought not be making ANY rules and regulations which are enforceable as laws” is simply a fantasy, not reflective of reality. I know what you wish were happening, but let’s try to deal with what is actually going on.

            Check out “promote the general welfare”.

            Here is the issue and the Supreme Court’s decisions: Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court’s equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler.

            There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story’s construction in Story’s 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison’s narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers.

            Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

            Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress’s own discretion.

            Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

            Q.E.D.

          • xandersaml

            Seems to me the Founders were quite accurate in their fears for the future of the republic. The foresaw the entire mess we are in now. People vote themselves largess from the government coffers filled by others (via confiscation at the point of a gun). A federal tax was abhorrent to the founders. And rightly so, as it has led us to where we are today.
            Centralized, all-powerful government is tyranny.
            Government is but a necessary evil. The less intrusive the better.

          • b4k9zp

            Except for one thing. The “general welfare clause” was always limited to those actions that were in accordance with the enumerated powers delegated to the Congress in Article I, section eight paragraphs one through eighteen. They were not to be used as a “blank check” which would allow congress to do anything it pleased that it, AND IT ALONE, decided was for the “general welfare” of the country. Same with the “commerce clause” and the “necessary and proper clause”, none of which allow congress to write whatever laws they please. (As for example the unconstitutional violation of the second amendment by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, which were enacted under the “authority” of the “commerce clause”.

            What you are saying then, is that the FDR court blatantly violated the Constitution by abandoning any pretense that the Constitution did in fact sharply limit the powers of the Congress to write “whatever laws it pleased”. The constitution does not permit such things.

            Both Jefferson and Madison stated, in effect, that “horrid mischief would ensue” if Congress were given blanket permission to write whatever laws it thought were for the general good of the country. They have been proven to be 100% correct. (Can you defend the unconstitutional Patriot Act? or the Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that essentially guts the sixth amendment? or the unconstitutional and unaffordable Affordable Care Act, which started out as an unwieldy 2700 page document, and now consists at the least, of more than 34,000 pages of rules and regulations?)

          • b4k9zp

            Unless a bill or proposed law is passed by a majority vote of each house of congress and signed into law by the president, it is no law at all. No president, or any court majority, has the power, under the Constitution, to make new law. That’s obvious by the wording of Article I, section one of the Constitution. “All legislative power, herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
            which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

            All executive orders, proclamations, etc., and all judicial orders and decisions that create new law (and impose new taxes on the public) are flatly unconstitutional, and always have been.

            None of the Congressional agencies are constitutional, for many (if not most) of them combine legislative, executive and judicial powers in one body, from which there is often no appeal, and are a guarantee of tyranny. The current furor about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) ban on the sale of 5.56 mm M885 “green tip” bullets to the public is a case in point. In violation of federal law, the ATF (at the direction of the president) attempted to ban a form of ammunition that is specifically NOT an armor-piercing bullet, as that is defined in current federal law (Title 18 U.S. Code, section 921 (a), (17) (B), including sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), and Section 921(a)(17)(C). Fortunately, the law does allow open comments on such rules, but the ATFE should not be allowed to make any new rules, or decide who is violating any existing rules.

          • Publius.Polis

            There are no congressional agencies. The various agencies are established within the Executive Branch. Each agency exists because it was brought into existence by Congress. All of the alphabet soup of agencies have been voted upon, funded and supervised by virtue of congressional oversight by the Congress. Every cabinet department has been established by enactment of congress. The president sees to the execution of the laws passed by congress.

            I’m sorry to be so simplistic here but to say that the governmental agencies are not constitutional is simply not true. That may not square with your own interpretation of the constitution but it suits most of the 319,000,000 of us.

            That is the genius of representative democracy. It suits most of us. And pisses off a few of us. Check out the last presidential or congressional election.

          • b4k9zp

            Quibbling over the meaning of the word “is” as always, liberal? For all those agencies were created by congressional action, and are therefore congressional agencies. They are unconstitutional, for only the congress has the power to make new laws.

            BTW, There is nothing about any “department” of the executive branch, except the two references in Article II section two paragraphs one and two that talk about the “heads of departments”.

            The president only has power to execute the constitutional laws that are passed by congress and that he signs into law, or are passed over his signature by a two thirds vote of each house of congress. He has no authority (and none of the “departments” under his presidency have any authority) to make any new laws, and that’s what “regulations” are , new laws, because the executive branch is flatly prohibited from exercising any legislative powers under article I, section one of the Constitution.

            I don’t “interpret” the constitution, ignorant one. I just go by what it actually says, not some “learned jurist’s” opinion of what it says. I have the power to do that, and my view is as valid as any judge’s

          • Publius.Polis

            Yadda yadda yadda, your opinion is no more valuable than that of anyone. If you don’t interpret the constitution then you stand alone. Hell even the drafters of the document interpreted it. It is comforting to know that there is someone who knows everything.

            I am in awe of your perfection. Why the hell we have to bother with a court system when we have you to make all of the judgments necessary is a major mystery.

            I’ll go ahead and alert the press. Perhaps we can hold a convention and elect you emperor so that your exalted decision making processes may benefit the entire nation instead of just those of us lesser beings in this obtunded thread .

          • b4k9zp

            So you admit that I’m correct and you are wrong, as usual And you continue to make blatantly false statements about others comments, as always. I have never claimed that I was infallible, but only that the Constitution’s meaning has not changed since it was written, except where it was changed lawfully and constitutionally by the process required by Article V of the Constitution.

            Despite your lies, I don’t need to “interpret” the constitution, for it means what it says and only what it says. And any attempts to change it by any means other than the Amendment process required by Article V is unconstitutional and such changes are without any foundation.

            That’s why all spending on any form of what we call “welfare”, which is what the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution called “charitable or benevolent purposes” is totally unconstitutional, because the language of the Constitution has not been changed by the Article V amendment process.

            Similarly, the meaning of the second amendment has not been changed from the founding fathers’ concept that it clearly protects the individual’s birthright and civil right to possess/carry the same weapons that are in common use by the “standing army” (police and military) of the time, so that they can form militias at need (not that they have to be a member of a militia in order to have the guns) has never been changed by any amendment to the Constitution.

            Nor have the “general welfare”, “commerce”, and “necessary and proper” clauses of Article I, section eight ever been amended by an amendment proposed and ratified according to Article V of the Constitution to allow the Congress to make any laws it pleases for any purpose it thinks is “for the good of the people”.

          • Publius.Polis

            Your understanding of the way that the government functions is as erroneous as your characterizations of my opinions as lies. Even a complete moron can see that laws are not amendments in that they are brought into existence by entirely different and constitutional methods.

            You are clearly some sort of major misanthrope who hasn’t the capacity to see beyond your own myopia. Too bad for you and yours. You must be a total joy to live with.

          • b4k9zp

            I don’t characterize your opinions as lies. I characterize your false statements as lies, which is what they are.

            Second, I understand the way government functions, and also understand the meanings of the words used in the Constitution of the USA. Since the Constitution declares itself to be the Supreme Law of the land, it is the final and only judge of what actions (laws, etc.) of government are unconstitutional, not some “learned opinions” of some majority on any court.

            Obviously you have a severe problem, because of your own ignorance, in understanding what other people state, for I never claimed that any law was an amendment (but all amendments to the US constitution are part of the Supreme Law of the Land, of which I wrote previously.

            I stated that none of the laws that Congress has passed that HAVE MODIFIED the constitution to allow spending of taxpayers’ money (and theft of taxpayers’ money) for any purpose which the congress considers to be for the good of the country are unconstitutional and not valid laws at all.

            The fact that you call another person a moron shows that you know that as always, you know that you have no factual evidence, nor any conceivable or possible form of logic, thinking ability or reasoning ability to support your own quite invalid and ignorant opinions.

          • Publius.Polis

            Of course you cannot but characterize every opinion not your own a certain lie.

            This is an indication of the unearned high opinion you have of your own thoughts. The Constitution or any other document cannot “judge” since it doesn’t have any power to do anything at all since it is an inanimate object. It only has what ever meaning we as people assign to it. That you imagine it to be actually doing something brings your thought processes into question as to their veracity, contact with reality, and virtue.

            Absent people interacting with the principals embodied within the document it is simply a piece of paper. Your continual denial of the use we have put to it’s principals is a tragedy of perception, not at all fitting of a serious conversation.

          • b4k9zp

            Actually, publius, have you ever read the tenth ratified amendment to the Constitution? It does not protect “rights” at all, but it does say, and I quote: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
            prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
            or to the people.”

            The Constitution delegates certain powers to the government, reserving legislative powers to the Congress of the USA, executive powers to the executive branch, and judicial powers to the judicial branch. The intent was that all three branches would be equal, and that no branch was allowed to exercise the powers of either of the other branches.

            Article I, section nine prohibits certain actions to the federal government. It reads, and I quote: “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

            The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

            No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed.

            No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the sensus or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

            No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another: Nor shall vessels bound to or from one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties,in another.

            No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

            No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, or any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

            Article I, section ten of the Constitution prohibits certain actions to the states. It reads, and I quote: “No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

            No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the new produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State, on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

            The intent of the tenth amendment was that those powers not specifically delegated to the government by the constitution (article I, section eight), and those not specifically denied to the federal government (Article I, section nine) and the states (Article I, section ten) by the constitution, were reserved to the states, individually or collectively.

          • Publius.Polis

            This post was a good one. I think that every one regrets the slavery stuff in Article 1, and the meaning of the rest has been hotly debated ever since. The Civil War was in part fought over the meaning of “States Rights”. And the guys with the biggest guns won.

            Although the various states do eventually get some of their laws booted up to the Federal Court System, very few have been turned back as unconstitutional. The exceptions are those that deny due process, equal access and equal treatment and those involving the 2nd amendment.

            Because of vigorous challenges to state laws involving possession and access of fire arms the 2nd amendment usually comes out on top. Not always,but it seems that the amendment prevails.

          • b4k9zp

            Despite your lies, the War Between the States was not about slavery or “States rights”. It was about an over-bearing government that was not abiding by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the USA. The Southern states, with about 1/3rd of the total population and between 1/3 and 1/4th of the total number of states, was paying more than two thirds of the tax revenues received by the federal government, despite the clear statement in Article I, section eight paragraph one that “The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
            and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general
            welfare of the United States; but all duties; imposts and excises, shall be
            uniform throughout the United States.”

            The Second Amendment protects an absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms against any action by any government that lessens that right. And the rest of the Constitution supports that. For it states in Article IV, section two paragraph one that: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” And the fourteenth amendment , section one, clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
            jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
            State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
            shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
            States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
            property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
            jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            All laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms are completely unconstitutional, no matter what the courts state, for the Constitution states that they are unconstitutional. Same with violations of the first, fourth, fifth sixth, seventh and eighth amendments, and any of the “unenumerated rights” protected by the ninth amendment.

            The Tenth Amendment, though, does not refer to “rights”. It refers to “powers” –those actions that are permitted to the states and the federal government by the constitution., as well as those it prohibits to both the states and the federal government.

          • b4k9zp

            The “absence of regulation is tyranny”? ROFLMAO! The presence of regulations restricting any rights whatever is tyranny. YOu have a weird definition system.

          • Publius.Polis

            Me and Webster. The absence of regulation is unfettered freedom and tyranny of the few, or the one with the biggest gun, over the many. Not historically a good thing.

          • b4k9zp

            Actually, unfettered freedom is the ideal state, where each man is ruled only by his own conscience, and all have the mind of Christ, preferring others before themselves. Nothing you state to the contrary has any validity.

          • CommonSense4America

            Well if you have an anti stupid agenda, you need to look beyond the end of your nose. The anti gun agenda is everywhere,,,just open your eyes and engage your brain.

          • Publius.Polis

            As also is the “pro gun agenda”. Everyone has an opinion about everything. Monochrome filters are very good at eliminating information. If one sees the world through only one filter then by definition one lacks information. There is no “end of your nose” everything is in our minds.

          • b4k9zp

            The only valid opinion though, is the “pro freedom” agenda, which entails the unalienable right to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the police and military of the day.

          • b4k9zp

            You are no “gun owner” for if you were, you would oppose any and all unconstitutional attempts by any government to limit the right to keep and bear arms. No one is “afraid of government”:, but rightly concerned that govenment, if it is not kept from doing so, WILL ACT to destroy the rights of the people and attempt to enslave them. That’s been the case forever, and is the reason why the second amendment was ratified as part of the Constitution.

          • Publius.Polis

            You are mistaken about my gun ownership. What else have you imagined about the rest of us?

          • b4k9zp

            Just going by what you have stated. You prove that you know nothing about firearms of any kind, and are a troll stirring the waters for you don’t support the unalienable, unrestrictable personal right to possess and carry the same weapons in common use by the military and police of the day.

          • tinkerunique

            There are several places that a combat serviceman is assumed to have PTSD, and is also mentally incapable of handling any gun. Several places have confiscated guns from families that have been complained against by neighbors for spanking one of the kids when they misbehaved.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            That is really stupid. A kid misbehaves, he or she DESERVES to have their backsides spanked hard enough that they don’t want to make the same mistake twice. That’s called being a responsible parent.

          • paradoc2

            New York state and Safe act. Google it and learn. Ever hear of the United Kingdom and Australia BTW?

          • Daniel from TN

            1. The UK now has a government office that has the responsibility of changing the classifications of crimes so that the actual crime does not sound as bad as it really is.
            Examples. Rape is now called “domestic assault.” Armed robbery is now called “theft.”
            2.Since the gun ban in Australia went into effect some crimes have increased so much that authorities cannot measure the increase. It seems only criminals have guns now. I guess someone forgot to tell the criminals that they cannot own guns anymore.

          • paradoc2

            Isn’t that terrible? You might think that the criminals would at least try and do their part to thank society for providing them with three hots and a cot by refusing to break the all-so-well-intended gun laws. C’mon crooks, start being nice!

          • Publius.Polis

            The NY law does not take your gun away. It regulates the uses you may want to put to it. I do not live in the UK or Australia. So I do not fear their governments. So who has taken you guns away lately. or ever?

          • Dale Burris

            Right they regulates that you can not carry /use for self-defense that is just like taking it away! They also want you to register all your guns so WHEN they DO decide to take guns away they KNOW exactly WHO has them and don’t say it can’t happen because it HAS happened not here YET but in other countries! As the saying goes”those who FAIL to learn from history ARE doomed to repeat it’

          • Publius.Polis

            You are correct about learning from history. The history here both recent and long term is that the 2nd amendment stands as written. History also tells us that regulation has been a fact of communal life since at least the the beginning of written history. Wishing it wasn’t so does not make it so. Believing otherwise does not change history.

          • Publius.Polis

            The Safe act has been found to be constitutional.

            On December 31, 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, of the Federal District Court in Buffalo, upheld most of the New York SAFE Act, saying that its provisions “further the state’s important interest in public safety…. it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense”.[10] However he struck down the provision that only seven rounds of ammunition could be loaded into a ten-round magazine, calling it “an arbitrary restriction” that violated the Second Amendment, and saying that it could result in “pitting the criminal with a fully-loaded magazine against the law-abiding citizen limited to seven rounds.”

          • paradoc2

            As you said before ‘the government is full of imbeciles and not worth getting all torqued up about’ – I agree. Court of Buffalo: people wearing robes, slinging gavels, and spewing sophistry – apparently oblivious to the Constitution or the Dick act of 1902. Challenged in the SCOTUS, it would probably be over-ruled with the current gaggle of five constitutionalists versus four activists – the usual 5 / 4 split.
            Let’s face it, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to squelch tyranny be it foreign or domestic so the “people” control the government, not the other way around. Pretty hard to resist tyranny if the ‘dolts in power’ dupe enough of the ‘fools they aren’t supposed to rule’ into making weapons less and less effective for that intended purpose.
            Fortunately a lot of the people in New York are scoffing at that alleged “Safe act” by refusing to register their semiautoamatic rifles. Good for them and Happy Friday to you brother!

          • Dale Burris

            They are working on it and doing like it was done in England and Australia just a little bit at a time

          • Oingo Boingo

            Veterans in CA and NY that have exposed themselves to confiscation of firearms because they got into the VA mental health loop and some Fed weenie decided to rat them out to the local Pertektinservirs.

          • Publius.Polis

            So you want mental health professionals to not report people with mental health issues? This can’t go well.

          • Oingo Boingo

            Getting reported, by some self important hoplophobe alarmist at the VA, to police that will infringe 2A Rights and confiscate firearms for PTSD, Depression, Anxiety that is nowhere bad enough to indicate Institutionalization or violent acting out is WRONG and unjustified.
            Your Totalitarian Symp, Big Brother toady response reveals more about you than you may know.
            Go snivel and whine somewhere else.

          • Publius.Polis

            Again, you believe that a mental health professional should NOT report an individual who is found to be a danger to himself or others? Do you have privileged information about the case? Or are you making it up as you go along? Go somewhere else? So you might post your paranoid drivel with out scrutiny? Sorry, but it’s a free country despite your goofy impulse to speak as if yours was the only virtuous idea.

          • Oingo Boingo

            Weak attempt there to spin and distort what I stated, Mr. Weenie.
            Did the part about “…nowhere bad enough to indicate Institutionalization or violent acting out…” just elude your delimited mentation or are you just practicing to be a slippery, deceptive, full of crap, dissembling and distracting Press Secretary for some rotten political hack ?
            Give in to your inner horse’s ass and go jump out of a 10 story window, with your Latin/English dictionary that you use to show everyone what a silly poseur you are.
            Do it today.

          • Publius.Polis

            That’s the part (nowhere bad enough to indicate Institutionalization or violent acting out…)you have shown that you are ignorant of. If you don’t know the particulars of the case in question then your opinion is based upon some sort of paranoid fantasy.

            I see that you equate facts with “slippery, deceptive, full of crap, dissembling and distracting…” This is typical of someone with no legitimate argument. You must resort to childish name calling in order to reinforce your lack of reliable information. It’s a bitch being called out isn’t it? Tell me why some poor bastard who has been found to be mentally incompetent should have a firearm.

            Asking someone to commit suicide is indicative of a clinically disturbed individual. If this applies to you, I hope that you can get help. If this was simply a euphemism then perhaps your time would be better spent trying to grow the balls necessary to support your own argument.

            Further, those of us with an actual education do not need a Latin/English dictionary in order to make a point. Some of us actually know this stuff, as difficult as this must be for you to comprehend. Perhaps you own vocabulary would benefit from the use of a good dictionary.

            And lastly, why are you so focused on weenies? Are you ten? Do you still laugh at fart jokes?

          • Oingo Boingo

            Take a hike back to the corner where you’re more relevant being sold for gay tricks.

          • Publius.Polis

            That’s all you have? Calling me a gay trick? Resorting to hate speech is so typical of your ilk. You are so insecure in your infantile beliefs that you need to some how diminish your supposed enemies. I cannot even begin to fathom the depths of your fear and ignorance. It is similar to fighting with a child. Pathetic, and unworthy of an intelligent adult. I regret that you are of such diminished capacity as to be unable to speak coherently. Tragic, really. I wonder if it was yourself that has had his little gun taken away by the big bad government. If so I apologize for assuming that you were speaking rhetorically. I hope that you get help soon. Meanwhile please stay on those psychotropics.

          • Oingo Boingo

            Why don’t you stay on your boyfriend’s genitalia.
            You’re better at that than you are at disputation.
            Your whiney sniveling has become tiresome and your projection fantasy regarding an official confiscation reveals more about your sad sack of shit self than you are capable of imagining, Mary.

          • Publius.Polis

            Disputation!!! Good job. “Projection fantasy”, even better,which quite succinctly describes the working of your so called mind..You are worried about a completely imagined takeover of your gun and you accuse me of having a projection fantasy about the fact they they haven’t come for mine?

            But, as you know the paranoid fear based childish fantasy about the confiscation of your much needed phallic substitute is the prime mover of your own pathetic world view. Do you walk around showing it to everyone? Do you feel compelled to let people know that you have one and are prepared at a moments notice to use it to defend your group home? Is yours bigger than mine? Really, I know how important this is to you.

            “boyfriend’s genitalia” Again with the weenie fixation? You need another, less revealing trope. However it does make sense in a way, it is the first thing you can see when you occasionally get your head out from up your ass.

            I wonder if you mother had any children that lived?

          • Oingo Boingo

            Balls and spine free whining hoplophobe with classic Freudian fixations and no line between Reality and Fantasy says WHUT ?

          • Publius.Polis

            I refuse to continue a discussion with a person of diminished capacity. Please get help.

          • Oingo Boingo

            Please get stuffed. Do it today.

          • Publius.Polis

            Lovely.

          • b4k9zp

            No “mental health professional” should ever consider co-operating with government on this issue. For there is no reason for it whatever that is constitutional.

          • b4k9zp

            According to LONG-STANDING principles of “Doctor-Patient privilege” (privacy), government cannot access the medical (including mental) records of any citizen without a valid search warrant signed by a magistrate, particularly describing the evidence they wish to seize. (Fourth Amendment to the Constitution). No government has the knowledge or anything else to poke its nose into such areas.

          • Publius.Polis

            The commission of a crime and/or the strong possibility to do so is a well recognized reason to trump Doctor-Patient privilege. This is not a new quality of the relationship, and it is one that pervades the milieu where professionals have responsibility for the well being of their charges as well as the greater society. For example, teachers, medical professionals et. al. are obligated to report child neglect and abuse. Medical professionals are obligated to report some infectious diseases. Forensic pathologists and others are obligated to report findings of fact in their examinations.

            Primum non nocere (first, do no harm) does not only apply to the patient/doctor relationship, it implies the professionals’ responsibility to the rest of us as well.

            In this case it is not the government’s responsibility at all. It is the ethical and moral responsibility of the professional citizen to act in the best interest of his patient and his society.

          • b4k9zp

            The violation of “Doctor-Patient” privilege cannot be tolerated at any time, for any reason, without due process of law., despite your lies to the contrary. For government always acts to destroy rights and privacy, just witness the NSA spying on American citizens.

            Physicians have no responsibility to anyone but each of their individual patients.

          • Publius.Polis

            Lies? A physician, Physician’s Assistant, Registered Nurse Practitioner and Registered Nurses is obligated by law to report instances of child abuse, M.D. and D.O. are obligated by law to also report some communicable disease, any non attended suspicious death and dangerous (to self and or others) mental health status. His/her medical licence is dependent upon following these and other rules and regulations. Because you call this a lie does not change this very basic fact.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            A decorated war veteran and retired police detective had his guns seized in NY because he went to the hospital for help with INSOMNIA!! Since when is insomnia a mental disorder that renders one unfit to keep and bear arms? Pull your head out of the sand, man!! These fascist gun-grabbers will use any excuse they can get to disarm the citizenry. That’s the Bloomberg camp for you.

            http://www.guns.com/2015/01/05/retired-cop-sues-state-after-seizure-of-guns-over-insomnia-treatment/

          • Publius.Polis

            Isn’t this case in the courts now? Lets wait until the court examines the guy’s medical records to see if the State of Ny was wrong.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Yes, this is getting ready to go to court, if it’s not already there by now. According to the initial article the whole mess started because the HOSPITAL erroneously processed his paperwork as an INVOLUNTARY COMMITTAL. They’re the first ones I’d sue.

          • b4k9zp

            Obama’s trying to get the ATF to ban common M885 “green tip” ammunition which his press secretary admits is an end run around the Senate’s refusal to enact any new gun control laws last year. Fortunately, the majority of the House and a large number of Senators told the head of the ATF not to do it, and he has backed off that ban, FOR NOW!

            BTW, the democratic party mayor and governor of Louisiana confiscated guns from those citizens of New Orleans who stayed in New Orleans after Katrina hit several years ago. The practice was stopped by a successful law suit seeking a permanent injunction against the practice by the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Foundation. Many of them never have gotten their guns back,

            New York State is confiscating guns from estates of people who have died while possessing guns, under their unconstitutional SAFE Act, which was passed in the middle of the night.

            Washington State’s new gun law has required that guns be confiscated by the police.

            Do you keep your head buried up to your toes in deep dark brown, manure all the time?

          • Publius.Polis

            What you site are legal remidies to perceived problems.

            The New Your law has not been found to be unconstitutional:

            On December 31, 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, of the Federal District Court in Buffalo, upheld most of the New York SAFE Act, saying that its provisions “further the state’s important interest in public safety…. it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense”.[10] However he struck down the provision that only seven rounds of ammunition could be loaded into a ten-round magazine, calling it “an arbitrary restriction” that violated the Second Amendment, and saying that it could result in “pitting the criminal with a fully-loaded magazine against the law-abiding citizen limited to seven rounds.”

            RE: Washington State new gun law:

            Requires a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties;

            Requires firearm dealers to obtain a state license, and imposes a background check on all dealer employees;

            Prohibits certain domestic violence misdemeanants and persons subject to a domestic violence order of protection from purchasing or possessing any firearms; and

            Requires that all firearms dealers have a state license in order to transfer ammunition.

            However, Washington does not:

            Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large capacity ammunition magazines;

            License firearm owners;

            Require the registration of firearms;

            Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;

            Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;

            Regulate unsafe handguns; or

            Significantly regulate ammunition sales.

            Local governments in Washington have limited authority to regulate firearms or ammunition, and the state requires local law enforcement to issue a concealed handgun license to any applicant who meets certain basic qualifications.

            So the requirement that guns be confiscated by police applies to those persons whom the court has demanded an order of protection due to domestic violence offences. And you think that this is a bad thing?

            The reference to deep brown manure was funny but it diminished you argument since it calls attention to something not actually in the discussion. Although it does further illuminate your scatologically centered sense of humor.

        • BuddyBoy53

          Bingo! They must protect their criminal behavior from prosecution by disarming the people.

        • WishIWuzACropDuster

          You said it, Chessmaster.

      • DavidMacko

        I no longer believe that citizens should be as well armed as government agents. I now believe that, if at all possible, we need to be better armed than those who are trying to enslave us.

        • WishIWuzACropDuster

          That means we need tanks, armor-piercing rounds, electric gatlin guns, fighter planes with pilots trained better than our military pilots. We’d need Apache Long-bows, Super Cobras (both fully armed). How can we the public get these kinds of weapons. That’s what we’d need to truly outgun the military.

          • independent thinker

            Before the gun control act of 1936 the public could possess anything they could afford in the way of firearms and military type equipment.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            You’re right. But let somebody in this day and age approach any defense contractor and try to procure military grade weaponry and see what happens. They’d get buried so deep and so fast…..

            I’d need to add guided missiles, SAMS, etc. to the list of weapons as well as people trained to use them to a high degree of proficiency.

          • independent thinker

            All are available but you have to be willing to pay the price. That price being the special licenses, background checks, and letting the BATF inspect your items, place of business, house, and any other property you won at will.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            How many could AFFORD the items? I’m sure most of the aircraft would be upwards of or more than 50 million each. and that’s without full armament. If anyone can afford the price tag, more power to them, I say.

          • paradoc2

            Probably a lot cheaper and safer to do it with boots on the ground. I doubt that I could even land an F16 on my block let alone afford to arm and maintain it.

          • paradoc2

            The BATF must have forgotten to ‘inspect’ those purposely strawpurchased rifles sent to Mexico in the ‘Fast and Furious’ debacle, think?
            Hopefully the DEA is inspecting the drugs coming into the country to make sure they are copacetic.

          • independent thinker

            Oh they inspected them alright. Holder had them inspect the rifles to make sure they were in good working order before they disappeared over the border.

          • Publius.Polis

            Holder was not in office when the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking caper was developed and executed. It was accomplished by members of the Bush administration in 2006 and ran until 2009. Although only an idiot would hold the president responsible for the execution of such a dumb assed project, (unless of course it was Nixon) I suspect that not a few imagine that Obama had something to do with it.

          • independent thinker

            Hoo boy, how the lies grow. Fast and Furious WAS done under Holder and they made no attempt to actually track the guns. There was a very short lived operation under Bush but it was totally different than F&F. Different name (which I forget) different tactics, and it was ended with only a few guns actually crossing the border because in the operation under Bush they realized they could not track the weapons like they hoped. In F&F there was thousands of weapons allowed to cross the border and no attempt was made to track them.

          • Publius.Polis

            Lies? Very short lived under Bush? Here are the facts:

            “”Gunwalking”, or “letting guns walk”, was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations between 2006 and 2011 in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them.” These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States. The Jacob Chambers Case began in October 2009 and eventually became known in February 2010 as “Operation Fast and Furious” after agents discovered Chambers and the other suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.

            CBS News reports on a second alleged ATF gunwalking operation called “Wide Receiver” in Tucson. It’s also run out of the Phoenix office and dates back to at least 2008 under the Bush Administration.

            Obama took office in 2009

            March 2011: President Obama tells Univision, a Spanish language network, that neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder knew of or approved Fast and Furious.

            “There may be a situation here which a serious mistake was made,” said President Obama, “and if that’s the case then we’ll find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable.”

            May 3, 2011: At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on an unrelated topic, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asks Attorney General Holder when he first heard of Fast and Furious.

            Holder answers: “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

            Aug. 29-30, 2011: ATF Director Kenneth Melson is reassigned and the U.S. Attorney for Arizona who oversaw Fast and Furious, Dennis Burke resigns.

            Oct. 5, 2011: CBS News reports further on Operation “Wide Receiver,” in an exclusive interview with a confidential informant for ATF who said the agency was letting guns walk as early as 2006.

          • b4k9zp

            That is a lie. For Bush administration officials stopped the “Gun walking” program within months, (by 11/2007) because the Mexican government was not even attempting to track the weapons that had been equipped with GPS locators.

            Obama and Holder REINSTATED the unconstitutional and illegal program in January 2009, because they wanted to inflate the number of guns confiscated from cartel members that had been “bought in the USA”, in order to drum up support for stricter gun control laws in this country.

          • paradoc2

            So you actually do know about it yet choose to reinforce everything Obama and his toadies say. Remember how they ( the drones for Obama’s press control at the whitehouse ) worked on Sharyl Attkisson, the CBS reporter that was trying to investigate the coverup? Why do you insist upon defending Mr. ‘I’ll be the most transparent administration you ever had’ Obama and his cabal is beyond me…oh that’s right because you ‘get a kick out of it’. Happy Friday once again:)

          • paradoc2

            Bingo! Wide receiver…

          • paradoc2

            He sure claimed ignorance of it, backed his boy Holder to the wall in a tap dancing duet to suppress release of documentation regarding it to the congressmen investigating it. If it walks and quacks like a duck and water rolls off its back – you know the drill.
            Obama hated guns in private hands when he was still in school according to John Lott who spoke directly to him about it back then. Holder around 1993 made a statement at some convention that ‘we have to “brainwash” the public against the Second Amendment’. I’m suprised that you mistakenly thought fast and furious was on Bush’s watch – perhaps you have it mixed up with the much less problematic ‘wide receiver’ gun walking fiasco.

          • Publius.Polis

            I didn’t think it- the timeline came from the Arizona Republic, the paper is based in Phoenix, So it must be that they lied since they are full of liberal screed.

          • paradoc2

            Sounds likely…

          • coolman11

            I want the navy’s phalanx it’s awesome!

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Ahhhh! The CIWS (pronounced Sea-Whiz) The Close-In Weapon System…A radar aimed and fired Gatling Gun.

          • coolman11

            it’s glorious

          • paradoc2

            That law ( if we are on the same page – I thought it was 1934 ) I believe was to ban the manufacture of fully automatic guns like the Thompson and BAR for public sale because the do-gooder control freaks of the era ( being the paranoid ancestors of our modern day faux hoplophobic elected servants ) were using the Valentines day massacre to drum up gun control much like the current dolts now exploiit school / workplace tragedies to justify bans on semiautomatic guns like the AR15.
            If challenged in the SCOTUS, I don’t believe it would be upheld because it is in direct violation of the Dick act of 1902 that states that there can be no prohibitions to the unorganized militia ( “we the people” ) on weapons commonly used by the military. The way it is written the Dick act talks and what the political prostitutes propose after it walks – unless we are asleep at the wheel and entertain bogus laws, as apparently a lot of us have been doing.

          • Nightwing K’Trevala

            May well be, but the Iraquis and ISIS have, unfortunately, been doing pretty well with IEDs against our troops and you can’t tell me that patriotic Americans are dumber then those sand-fleas are…I’m not counting those imbecilic libtards in the universities who don’t know anything other than to parrot the liberal party line and wait for their handout from the government

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Can’t argue with that. Don’t ever underestimate what a bunch of determined good ol’ boys can do when we put our heads to it.

          • Nightwing K’Trevala

            ;;grins;; What makes you think that just you “goood ol’ BOYS” are the only ones that do anything? You’ve never encountered a perturbed woman with a skillet filled with hot bacon grease and aiming the whole shooting match for your face

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Good ol’ boys covers the gals too. I’ve watched a mad black woman pour a pot of boiling grits all over an abusive fiance and then proceed to beat the devil out of him with a cast iron skillet. (“Diary Of A Mad Black Woman”. Madea taught this lady how to play “grit ball”.)

          • Nightwing K’Trevala

            Hey, us gals have been doing that type of thing for a long time… Like giving Vikings “Hot Oil Hair Treatments” from large cauldrons over the castle walls. Just because the oil was boiling hot wasn’t OUR fault…They COULD have been civilized about asking for some things and we MIGHT have obliged them too…

          • Dale Burris

            Well said ………….and so true………….LOL

          • paradoc2

            Fortunately most of them aren’t elitist ditbags like our current administration is plump with and would not fire upon American citizens when their CIC says to do so.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Hopefully most would have the common sense and decency to recognize that “but for the grace of God goeth I…This could be my family at some point.” Is there any proof beyond speculation and conspiracy theory that Pres. Obama has actually forced senior military officer out who said they would not fire on fellow Americans?

          • Dale Burris

            There was a poll done and it asked of those in the armed services if they would confiscate civilians weapons and I think it 65 or 70% that said they WOULD NOT do so. So now obama is cutting back on the armed services YET encouraging the ILLEGAL EMERGENTS to join to get green cards I bet THEY will do what he wants them to do

          • b4k9zp

            We get the guys in the military who abide by their oaths to protect and defend the constitution to join us.

            All federal, state and local laws that prohibit the possession or limit the possession by individuals of any of the weapons in common use by the police and military are flatly unconstitutional, according to the constitution, and we can go to our National Guard armories and take the weapons that belong to us.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Sounds good to me.

            Boy, b4k9, I have been commenting on an article about sex offender laws and trying to be a voice of reason and I have been subjected to more verbal abuse than I have ever seen in my life. If you are not in the “take them out and shoot them.” or the “banish them forever and never forgive them” camp, then you’re looked at as bad as the offender. What kind of crap is that, man?

          • b4k9zp

            Personally, I think that if an adult male rapes a child (whether a boy or a girl), he should be castrated for the first offense, once it is proven that he had sex with the prepubescent youngster. for the second offense, death by hanging is too good for him.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Castration won’t stop a person and the courts tend to consider any form of mutilation cruel and unusual punishment. Chemical castration has been used some (Depo-provera),but if a cycle of injections are missed, the effect wears off. Pedophilia and other paraphilias are a sickness of the mind. Castration may stop the offender from getting an erection, but it won’t stop other forms of sexual contact such as digital or oral-genital contact. What about female sex offenders who target young children? I agree that a second offense should be it for the offender.

            You know, the more I think about it, death sounds reasonable. Here’s why:

            Not every sex offender who molests a child and gets out of prison goes on to re-offend sexually. I would say that more times than not they are put on a form of parole called community supervision for life. (That’s what it’s called here in my home state.) They have to follow a long list of rules including things like:
            * No pornography
            * No use or possession of alcohol or drugs. Any prescriptions must be showed to the supervising officer immediately.
            * No Internet without written permission of supervising parole officer. (If given permission for Internet access at home, NO social media, no pornography, and no using the Internet to contact minors.
            * Must attend and participate in a state-approved sex offender treatment program.
            * Must submit to and pay for periodic polygraph examinations (if indigent the state picks up the cost)
            * No contact with the victim(s) unless a therapeutic meeting is arranged by the victim treatment provider and the offender treatment provider.
            * Any sex offender with charges involving children must wear a G.P.S. ankle bracelet for the duration of their supervision.
            * No befriending, marrying, etc anyone who has children < 18. A sex offender with minor victims cannot be an adoptive or step-parent.
            * Any incidental contact with minors MUST be reported to the supervising officer.
            * No working or volunteering for any agency that provides services to children. No involvement with a youth ministry or youth choir at church.
            * Any other specific conditions may be added as needed by the supervising officer or treatment provider based on observed risk factors.
            *No loitering or frequenting locations where children gather
            (Playgrounds, Parks, schools, day cares, Restaurants that cater to children such as Chuck E. Cheese Pizza or fast food establishments that have a playground, scouting / mentoring programs, YMCA, video game arcades, movie theaters, etc.)
            * Random home and work visits by the supervising parole officer.

            You see the laundry rules they have to follow and that they have to wear a G.P.S. tracking bracelet 24/7/365.25. If they re-offend while under that kind of scrutiny, they have proven that nothing will deter them from their deviant criminal sexual behavior and therefore have earned the death penalty. The ones who screw up and re-offend sexually make it so very hard for the ones that are really doing what they're supposed to do and who are staying well clear of what they are supposed to stay clear of.

        • WishIWuzACropDuster

          You’re right.

    • Chessmaster

      If everyone carried a gun, you would see crime drop exponentially.
      However, like Wyatt Earp of the Old West, I don’t believe guns and alcohol should mix, so upon entering the Tavern you should have to check your gun at the door.

      • Publius.Polis

        The 2nd amendment doesn’t say “unless drunk”.

        • Chessmaster

          True it doesn’t, but I wouldn’t go into a Tavern full of Drunks with guns.
          Alcohol makes many much more aggressive and stupid than they are when sober.
          However, I wouldn’t go into a Tavern anyway, since I got past that years ago.

          • Tom Wittlief

            Drunk people who pull guns on sober people eventually end up balancing out their own population. Unfortunate, but its a matter of choice of the individual.

          • gingerale

            Jesus will make you not want any more alcohol any way, when you invite him into your heart and life…

          • CommonSense4America

            Maybe He should stop making water into wine.

          • paradoc2

            How about ‘comfort foods’?

          • steve crawford

            Those that have a CHL were instructed in classroom training about drinking while carrying a CW and being in places like bars and around heavy drinking. While the license give you the right to carry and you use that right, you can still be sued in Civil court. “Chessmaster is right”

          • paradoc2

            Don’t worry, ‘Pubis’ is stirring the pot as usual. Check out his other posts.

          • Publius.Polis

            It would be helpful if you were to remove you mind from your crotch (there is so little there that interests anyone) so that you might better breath the rarefied air of reason.

          • paradoc2

            Touche buddy.

          • paradoc2

            I resemble that remark! Every self respecting citizen enjoys their crotch and the crotches of their significant others. You might as well face it you’re addicted to crotch:)

          • Nightwing K’Trevala

            Chessmaster, it’s fun to go to some taverns and laugh at the way the drunks are behaving, besides they need some people to act as designated drivers…

        • sportshooter

          It doesn’t say unless high on drugs either. Maybe you should ask the criminals if they are high?

          • Publius.Polis

            How is it that you propose to be able to judge the relative sobriety of a gun wielder? What is the difference between a drunk and an idiot? Perhaps you might propose a gun users i.q. test to weed out the the dim and the high.

          • sportshooter

            How do you propose to weed out the dim, lying and idiotic of the liberal/progressive Democrats that have the intelligence of a earth worm? Think you could make up a test for that? I am willing to bet that many would fail miserably. Now in your feeble little mind, what are the scientific facts that make you want to ban guns and ammunition? I think we need a test for those that have the mental problem of believing that they live in the land of Oz and Obama is the Wizard.
            Now i will answer your question about the drunk and the idiot. I would take the drunks word long before I would take the word of any idiot that voted for Obama and his half baked unconstitutional policies. At least the drunk would be normal in a few hours but the idiot would be an idiot forever, just like the vast majority of those that still support Obama.

          • Publius.Polis

            I guess that you have not been able to understand this discussion. You bring up Obama, liberals, progressives and Democrats and write as if this is a cogent response. If you are mad at everyone but the true believers then perhaps you might consider that everyone else is not really against you, (since we don’t know you or probably care to) and that you come to these concepts from a flawed perspective. Those little voices that you hear are coming from the inside of your head. Perhaps you might return to the world of the aware following a new course of medication.

          • sportshooter

            You fail miserably in your half baked attempts at belittling me with insults a true liberal/progressive.
            I have answered your other posts where you make claim about the regulation of Automobiles and how well you have done doing it. Try refuting the facts that I gave you in that post, SIMPLETON, before you go off foaming the mouth like a rabid dog.

          • Publius.Polis

            “Now in your feeble little mind” “the intelligence of a earth worm”, “SIMPLETON”, “Obama is the Wizard”: You paint yourself with the brush of a disturbed person. While you accuse me of using insults. That leaves me to conclude that you are not a worthy debater, and that you cannot or will not filter your hatred and bigotry. In addition the fact that you don’t mind exposing your failing world view to everyone tells me that you have serious delusional thought constructs. Has anyone else mentioned this to you? If everything is the fault of the sitting president then all of your problems will go away when his term concludes. Then what will you do? Perhaps you might consider moving to the Tea Party Paradise that is Wisconsin, where your darling hot presidential candidate has all but totally screwed up our financial situation to the point of bankruptcy, moral and fiscal.

          • sportshooter

            Now little man with big mouth disease, I just had you show the whole world what you really are. All of you liberal/progressives are exactly the same. You all feel that you are the most intelligent people to walk the face of the earth, but in reality you are so indoctrinated by government that you are incapable of thinking and doing for yourself. You have done nothing with any of your posts but try to insult everyone here, and you really did an extremely poor job of that in fact.
            Why is it you have to rely on Gov’t to do everything for you like your mommy did and more than likely still does?
            If you like socialism or communism so much, why don’t you use your passport and go to Russia and see if you can run your mouth like a ducks ass. You wont go there because you would end up in a Gulag the first time you open your mouth. You aren’t intelligent enough to figure out you keep giving your rights away in order to obtain something you could have if you go off your lazy ass and worked for it like the rest of us.
            Under your boy Obama we have the highest non-participation rate in history! why dont you use your Obama phone to call Barry and tell him that he is nothing but a RACIST community organizer and he should leave the White House while there is still time to repair this country that he and his buddy Holder continue to divide. You also should use your Obamacare, that I am helping pay for to get the mental health help you obviously are in need of.
            Now run along, MORON before your mouth writes a check your simple little mind cant cash.

          • Publius.Polis

            Jesus, you guys are weird. The high non-participation rate under Obama is all but completely due to the retirement of “baby boomers” from the workforce. Either you know that and hoped that I didn’t, or you are ignorant of the science of demographics and are only mouthing something you have heard and didn’t understand. When one deals with reality one learns that simply believing something doesn’t make it true. If you feel that asking someone to justify their position with evidence is insulting than I plead guilty. I haven’t given up any rights, and yet you seem to have. I am sorry for your loss. When did they go missing? Did you loose any in service of you country? I didn’t. Did you lose them when you went to vote? I didn’t. If you dislike intelligence then what are you left? If you hate Socialism then I assume that you will return your Medicare card and you Social Security $$. My “lazy ass” earns me a paycheck higher than 98% of the populace. I find it interesting that you imagined otherwise, but then why not make that up also?

          • sportshooter

            Go blow smoke up someone else’s Ass. You spend way too much time on here to earn anything more than welfare. You failed to justify your argument by comparing a guaranteed right to one that you have to pay for, IE your car.
            Next time try comparing apples to apples instead of blowing smoke up everyone’s ass. Show us your irrefutable evidence, since all we have seen so far is Blabber and Bullshit. I did my 12 years serving my country. I will gladly give back my medicare and social security cards, when they give me what I paid into it along with the compound interest that I would be due. I am willing to bet you aren’t willing to do the same. You couldn’t pay into it seeing as your a lifetime welfare leech.
            I guarantee you my pay paycheck pays for your benefits every month.

          • paradoc2

            That “compound interest” idea sounds good, I’d go for that too! If I were in the top two percent income crowd, I’d be glad that Barack “they can afford to pay a little more taxes” Obama is on his way out. So far he’s only been able to work his way up to the median income crowd to pay for all the leeches that kept him in office.

          • sportshooter

            It would make many people instant millionaires. Publius.Polis is a real work of art that doesn’t know the difference between a right and a privilege, he really should get off welfare and get a real job. He thinks in his little mind that registration wont turn into confiscation, just like all the rest of the supposed liberal/progressive gun owners. They are either real good liars or they need to take advantage of the mental health clause in their Obamacare insurance policy.

          • Publius.Polis

            See above.

          • coolman11

            how is personal income up 2.9% in 2013 ,up 4% in 2014, total employment up 1% in’ 13 up 1.5% in’ 14 and unemployment down 6.2. in’ 13 from 8.8 in 2009 screwed up?

          • paradoc2

            Voices: “Tea Party Paradise” and ‘hot presidential candidate that screwed up our financial situation’ ( do you live in Wisconsin and actually believe that it’s the Republicans’ faults that it, as well as most states with underachieving big cities in America, are going bankrupt – no Democratic failed fiscal policies had anything to do with those problems? ) seems a bit delusional too. You are not exactly without fault when it comes to being condescending. Maybe you should try filtering out the insults and focus on a substantial rebuttal outside the ‘Obamanation box’ for a change.

          • Dale Burris

            To quote a famous writer “A armed society is a polite society” !

          • sportshooter

            I could not have said it better myself.

          • Greyguy

            Anyone with a CCI fits a pattern of responsible behavior far beyond the norm due to training and knowledge. Take for example the state of West Virginia where you can carry in a bar…..3 negative incidents involving CCL’s in god knows how many years the law has been in effect. We are taliking in hundreths of percentage points over time. You are trying to make a connection that a person with a CCI is similar to a person with a car which is a very silly connection, I have run across some stupid gun owners, but the behavior of the CCI crowd is rarely stupid, most like their privacy, and are very quiet about it , and most of all do not want to loose their licience.

          • Publius.Polis

            I agree with you, except that the analogy I was attempting to make with the automobile is the issue of regulation. I.e. We have a right to operate and own a car, but we must register it, insure it and use it responsibly. From time to time various legislative bodies have made laws to regulate the use of automobiles and we have all complied in the interest of safety and prudence. No one is afraid that they might take our cars away each time a new regulation is promulgated. The result of our experience with automobile regulations is that we accept them as a “cost” of living in a civil society. Many gun owner’s reaction to any firearm regulation is to conclude that the objective of the regulation is to “take my gun away”. As a regulated gun owner I have had no experience with anyone wanting to take my gun away and since I don’t experience the fear I also don’t suspect the motive of every legislator; liberal, conservative or complete nutter. Of course you are correct that there are far more irresponsible car owners than there are stupid gun owners. This observation should not lead one to conclude that well regulated gun ownership is a societal evil.

          • sportshooter

            Hey Dumba$$, News Flash, your car is a privilege not a Constitutional right. I told you that you are going to write a check with your mouth that your mind can’t cash and you just did.

          • Publius.Polis

            We have the right to own property. If you didn’t know that then i would recommend that you re-read the founding documents. It seems that your checking account is overdrawn again.

            Amendment IV

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

            Amendment V

            No person…. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

            How’s that from a dumb ass?

          • sportshooter

            Any dumb ass can cut and paste. You should have learned that in kindergarten and preschool but it took you a lot longer I see. Congratulations you just passed to first grade.

          • Publius.Polis

            That is your answer to my having pointed out that we do indeed have the right to own property? Brilliant! Cogent! Responsive! And quite comically sad.

          • Publius.Polis

            Hay exalted genius of the benighted, see above and learn.

          • sportshooter

            Again you try to spin your comment above. Try reading it before you submit it next time.

            “I.e. We have a right to operate and own a car, but we must register it, insure it and use it responsibly. From time to time various legislative bodies have made laws to regulate the use of automobiles and we have all complied in the interest of safety and prudence.”

            You don’t have a right to own a car nor do you have the right to refuse any regulation that is applied to it since it is not guaranteed under the Constitution and its Amendments. We all on the other hand have a guaranteed right to own firearms and that right cannot be infringed by anyone including liberal/progressive nut jobs that believe they know what is best for the rest of us.
            You keep pushing for regulation of something that cannot be regulated, SCOTUS has upheld that on numerous occasions. How many more times do have to be told NO before you get it through your thick heads that its not going to happen?

          • Publius.Polis

            O course we have the right to own property. To say otherwise is just absurd. I am not pushing for regulation, I am simply pointing out that there are legal regulations on every “right”. This is the price of civilization. It has ever been so and ever will be. The law is inescapable. Reason however is not.

          • paradoc2

            Hay is for horses. I hear donkeys like it too…

          • paradoc2

            Above what? Is that why Obama’s dreamy eyes always seem to be drifting toward the Heavens when he preaches?

          • Greyguy

            First drivingis a priviledge that can be revoked by the state at any time for ay reason, it is not constitutionally protected.

            Second, Ask the people in New orleans how they felt about having their guns confiscated and never returned to them without due process! Every despotic leader who ever ruled a nation first registered the guns then went after them,bar none.

            One of the only reasons we have never been invaded is because we have private gun ownership and a mentality of non-compliance to authority as a national attitude. During the cold war a Russian General was asked if he would invade and he said they would bomb but not invade due to private gun owership. Why do you thinkthis dolt in the Whitehouse is so hell bent one gun control, he wants a compliant public, the only way to get it is to have no chance of a revolt for all the dumb redistrobution of wealth policies he has. Its called incrementalism…registration, ban selected models, more models and ammo, finally look at Conn…congratulations your a criminal if you own the following guns! Thats how it happens. WhereI live the cops do not care; go 45 miles to the city and guns are not welcome by the police at all and you will be give a ration by them in most cases, 3miles out of town, not so much.

            Remember once the registration list is in the hands of a political entity it mught just as well be on Face book and then you become a target. I do not need that nor wnat from the polititions, police, criminals or anybody else who can hack the system.

          • Publius.Polis

            Driving “privilege” cannot be revoked without due process. It would be unconstitutional. And the New Orleans issue was found to be unconstitutional and illegal. “Fairfax, VA-After a three-year legal battle over the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, the City of New Orleans has agreed to settle a law suit by the National Rifle Association (NRA). A permanent injunction has been issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin and current Police Chief Warren Riley. The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.” Thus the Constitution works. Contrary to the largely paranoid expectations of many. So the question remains, Who has come to take you guns? I also think that the incrementalization argument doesn’t hold water, since there had been no erosion of our right to own firearms and thus no incremental diminution of rights. The right is regulated, and that is the result of legislation which as you know must arise in the congress, not the executive. The registration “lists” are public documents, as is you drivers licence, you voters card and your military records.

          • sportshooter

            You are wrong again with the drivers license issue. The vast majority of states have a point system for violations and when the points against your license reach 6 or any number they see fit to set, you then have your license suspended and you must turn it in to the Department of transportation within a set amount of time. You will get it back after a predetermined amount of time has passed. In many states you also have to retake the drivers exam as a prerequisite to getting your license back. You really should do your homework before you post.

          • Publius.Polis

            All of this happens as a result of legally established regulations. This is an example of due process. And that in fact is my point. Regulation is a fact of life.

          • sportshooter

            The firearms were confiscated and not returned until 3 years later. That is what is called confiscation in any rational persons mind. Why did you say no guns were ever confiscated in your previous post but were extremely quick to come up with the case law that proved they were? You keep getting caught in lie after lie, just like your boy Obama and your girl Hillary. Keep up the good work.

          • paradoc2

            So if you were attacked while the government hoplophobes had your weapons rusting away in barrels down there in Louisiana, and died as a result, isn’t that some consolation?
            How can you and your ilk even look at yourselves in the mirror whilst being supportive of such egregious treatment to citizens rights and bashing the NRA to boot.
            Oh yes, you didn’t bash the NRA in your post, but you can simply smell the virtual certainty that you are one of the many dolts that regularly bash them as if they were not one of the few ( if not the only one ) civil rights organizations on the planet that actually stands for human rights without an ulterior motive.
            Try: ‘they are only for the evil gun manufacturers for a good MSM rebuke to that’.

          • paradoc2

            Good points, the Japanese military had the same fears of a ground invasion. I doubt if Publius.Polis will admit to any of it making logical sense, as usual.
            He seems to have blind trust where none is due or he is working for the dolts that would love to disarm us in one fell swoop if they could, rather than incrementally as they’ve obviously trying to do for decades now – unless you are blind to what they’ve been up to by accident or design.
            You can lead a donkey to water but if it chooses to dehydrate: there’s nuthin’ U can do:)

          • Greyguy

            The Russians also decided never to invade us due to gun ownership,bomb us ,yes invade ,no, way too messy and unproductive from a military point of view; and that was the quote of a Russian General during the Cold War. Try as I may to be civil once in a great while my Don Rickle side comes out, then the fun begins. Soon.

          • paradoc2

            How about that Greyguy, and your driver license is honored in all fifty states but your gun permit is not. What smells rancid about all that?
            Time for national constitutional carry is long past due!

          • Greyguy

            And add to that, I only can vote in one place, but my mobile Acorn brethern can register and vote multile times with no ID, at least that is Holder’s theory; Ain’t Legal liberal logic wonderful.

          • paradoc2

            The ACLU wouldn’t let that flush – anyway they want to ban everyone from owning ( keeping ) and carrying ( bearing ) except the elites and their goons. Which one of the California witches twenty years or so ago, made that famous quote: “If I could only get the votes, I’d say Mr. and Mrs. America…turn them all in?” I’m fairly certain it was Senator Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi – either way there should be no doubt about their true agenda unless you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

          • paradoc2

            The criminals are for the most part already officially prohibited from possessing guns so whether or not they are high means nothing to them. I heard they don’t always obey the laws – imagine that…

          • sportshooter

            That was exactly my point but when dealing with someone like Publius.Polis I should be more specific in my comments.

      • DavidMacko

        That decision should be the responsibility of each tavern owner or other property owner, not the government.

        • Chessmaster

          I agree.
          I made no mention of the Government’s involvement.
          The Government has no place in telling any business how they should run it.
          However, we all know that the Government doesn’t see it that way.

          • Publius.Polis

            Those darned laws keep getting in the way don’t they?. Of course gov has a place in telling a business how to “run”. We have mandatory business licencing laws, tax laws, sanitation laws, equal access laws, zoning laws, business hours regulations etc. etc.etc. It seems that you want all of this to go away. Then what would we have? Laws are the reason we have civilization, and civilization is the reason we have laws. Were the laws to go away only the biggest guy with the biggest gun would be in charge. We have concluded and spent our own blood to insure that the biggest guy with the biggest gun is all of us, living with and under our laws.

          • paradoc2

            Yawn… you again. More gun laws for the criminals to ignore that ignore all the ones we already have.
            Those who disagree with your precious civilization theory don’t want trash pickup et al you argue. Cut the pretense, you know that is apples to oranges straw man sophistry.

          • Publius.Polis

            Wake up! It is a simple and obvious analogy used to illustrate the point that regulation is a societal norm. To pose an analogical argument is not sophistry it is instructive in that it points out intellectual inconsistency and thereby exposes errors of ethics and logic. It is however a rhetorical construct used to refute a similar one posed by Chessmaster above. As for the functions of a civilization I would refer you to Locke, Rousseau, and Moses (no last name), for further instruction.

          • paradoc2

            I believe it was Malone, yeah Moses Malone. He helped the Sixers to win a championship in ’82 or ’83 – great center he was! John Locke does have it together insofar as rebuking gun control nuts, true that. Rousseau, that one evades me but who cares – don’t those French owe us a lot of money anyway?
            Wouldn’t your “civilization” be a lot better if we would get out of one another’s day-to-day business and confront the real problems that are the proverbial elephant in the room? Infrastructure, illegal immigration, war proliferation, and wasting tons of money hovering space junk a few hundred miles above the earth for alleged studies ring a bell? What’s your spin on that PP?

          • Publius.Polis

            Moses Malone, good one. Locke really gets it together in his commentaries on liberalism which are embodied in the Declaration of Independence, The Swiss Rousseau in his “Discourse on Inequality” and “The Social Contract” Are the foundations of republican democracy that we know and practice. Of course things would be better if we got out of each others business. If politicians emulated their predecessors we would have improving infrastructure instead of a rotting one. It used to be that Conservative Republicans would look for things to build up the country and produce opportunity for every one. Eisenhower got the Interstate Highway System built. It used to be that conservative Republicans sought to keep us from polluting our environment as when Nixon developed the EPA. But alas now all we get is NO TAXES and no progress. Now Conservatives want to keep everything and share nothing and liberals want to share everything and reward no-one. We have an electorate that is bought and paid for by anonymous oligarchs and one that regularly votes against its own self interest. We have a Supreme Court that has no social conscious but a political one contrary to its role as the arbiter of our freedom. Illegal immigration is a sham and a fiction, we should let anyone in who can find a job. Unless you are a First Nations Native American that is how your ancestors got here. War proliferation is a function of “politics by other means”. War is intrinsically evil and all but completely ineffective as an instrument for government. It should be rare, difficult, and defensive. War is for nobody’s benefit. I know this from personal experience. Space junk! I’m in favor of learning what ever we can about where we are and what we know. Education may save us from ourselves. Research is the essence of education and space based instruments are fundamental research tools. What the hell is “spin”? Do you mean “opinion”?

          • paradoc2

            Yes, your opinion, that’s what I meant by spin. It’s true we are a country of mostly immigrants. I don’t believe you should be able to sneak in when people here legally had to go through a legal process. The people sneaking in are for the most part the dregs other countries are glad to be rid of, perhaps even terrorists.
            The space program is not worth the expense in my opinion considering all the other things we could use the money for. It is too ‘Flintstone-like’ to boot. At the speeds we propel space vehicles you’d need multiple generations to actually travel to other earth-like planets and once they got there the locals might put them into a zoo. What’s the odds of us being the most intelligent beings in the galaxy? From what I’ve seen so far I’d say the chance of that is slim to none.

          • Publius.Polis

            I also agree that we need to reform our immigration process, however I also think that the people who want to come here are not the “dregs” but the ambitious. These are the people for whom we should develop a way for them to stay and contribute. Of the 11,000,000 estimated illegal residents 8.1 million are from Mexico and Central America. 4.1 million of these are living with U.S. born children. And 2 million of these parents with children are living below the poverty line. This means that 6,000,000 of the 8 million illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are gainfully employed in U.S. jobs paying into Social Security and the IRS.(Stats from DHS) Happily the $ we are spending on looking for “habitable” planets are overwhelmingly spent on Earth based telescopes. I’d be willing to bet that within 100 years we will be commercially exploiting the mineral resources of the moon and possibly well on our way to doing the same on Mars.
            Money spent on basic research and exploration has always be returned many times thq original investment.What did Spain gain from funding Columbus? What did Jefferson gain for the country by funding Lewis and Clark? I agree with you about intelligent beings in the galaxy. The jury is still out on us.

        • Greyguy

          But I hope they are willing to be sued for taking on the responsibility of keeping their patrons safe and perhaps not doing it well when they remove my right to protect myself.

          • DavidMacko

            I agree, especially where the business in question invites you on their premises for purposes of providing you products or services.

      • paradoc2

        Yeah, those gun-free zones have been working so well everywhere else. That’s why there are never shootings in schools, movie theaters, or government buildings.
        Who protects you at the bar when the armed crooks barge in unannounced, or are all the bartenders and waitresses armed for that purpose?

      • b4k9zp

        Why should you? If every one in the tavern is carrying, you would know it and would be very careful about what you said and did.

    • Randy

      Very well put b4k9zp you are exactly right citizens do have to right to carry and protect themselves,Anytime the government or any entity tries to take these rights away or infringe upon them,should be look upon as an act of war against the people.

    • mathis1689

      Perfectly said! My sentiments exactly!

    • WishIWuzACropDuster

      Well said your comment is, my padawan.

    • Rhodes

      ABSOLUTELY!!! One Cannot Stress This Enough! Some people try to proclaim that this is just the Ideology of the Pro 2nd Amendment supporters! There is NO separate Ideology to it…! Fact is Fact!!!

  • coolman11

    I hope if my daughters move away for college they will be able to arm themselves where ever they go

    • b4k9zp

      All indications are that the proposed concealed carry law modification in Texas that will allow CCL holders to carry not only on the public areas outside college and university buildings, but inside the buildings, will be passed by the Texas house and senate, and the governor has said he will sign it when it reaches his desk. (of course you have to be 21 in the state of Texas to buy a handgun or to get a concealed carry license).

      • coolman11

        they can go to college anywhere as long as its in Texas then! they’ll just have to skip a year and do two years at a local Jr college until they can carry especially if it’s a big city.

    • Deborah G

      You have to make sure she does not attend a liberal left wing university. That si what I did for my kids. Tuition paid f they attended a school with intelligent conservative focus, no tuition if they picked a left wing liberal one.,As parents we have to help our kids make the right choices. They are morons at that age. Who would turn over thousands of dollars based on the decision making of an 18 year old?

      • AttMore

        Good job,Praise God…

        • Deborah G

          Yes we do (-:

          • AttMore

            :)..
            .
            God Bless you and yours…

          • Deborah G

            And may he bless you abundantly too!

          • AttMore

            🙂

        • Deborah G

          IF they decided to attend one we wouldn’t stop them but the tuition costs sure did. Win Win

    • Nightwing K’Trevala

      I’d also suggest that they get into Martial Arts classes and possibly some of the Medieval/ Renaissance Recreation clubs to get further training in weapons and defense tactics

      • coolman11

        I will do that too she’s too beautiful I will have to make her well rounded in lethality I don’t trust anyone out there if I’m not around

        • Nightwing K’Trevala

          Also make sure that she has hairspray or perfume in her purse to spray like mace in the assailant’s face. Perfume has the added benefit of marking the perp with the scent. Also one of the Medieval/Renaissance recreation clubs to look into is the Society for Creative Anachronism( http://www.SCA.org ). They have chapters all over the US, Canada, Europe and places in the Far East and Aulstralia and New Zealand and have been around since 1966. Hope that helps you and her with a few additional avenues of safety.

  • Brian

    I have heard that students are to only have pencil and books in hand when they are in school. These same people need to try telling that to the perpetrators who come into the schools with the intent to kill those they have vendettas with or just anybody in general because they are mad at the whole world for the problems they have encountered. As American citizens we should be able to defend ourselves by any means necessary or else we will criminals running things which looks like is already happening by the self-defense laws that are in place already. They are designed to protect the criminal. The police and the justice system are no help since you only see them when they want clock people for traffic violations or after all the damage has been done when shooting and/or robbery has taken place while at the same time if these perpetrators are still standing they get protective custody if their lives are threatened by those who are seeking vengence on their lives. They are even being told how to deal with criminals in ways that would never work when us ordinary citizens use the same approach to reason with these devils that never work otherwise those who were begging for their lives would still be here right now and they would not use violence on their victims after they got what they wanted from them. With this being said they do need to relax all gun laws in this country because criminals prey upon the weak and those who are unarmed and naivete to how the criminal mind works.

  • Deborah G

    Arm the teachers or security

  • paulrph1

    If alsholism is the problem they should ban alcohol not guns. But that will not happen, No way, no how.

    • Publius.Polis

      We tried that, it didn’t turn out so well. Read a book.

      • sportshooter

        I am going to assume that liberal/progressives didn’t read that book either, since it proves that any ban can and will be circumvented if the people don’t want it. It also appears the American people don’t want a gun or ammo ban either, with more than 70% of the people supporting the second amendment along with the rest of the Constitution.

        • Publius.Polis

          I’m a card carrying liberal who doesn’t want to ban guns, I would like to keep them out of the hands of those not competent to use them, i.e. Drunks, addicts, children, known morons, the infirm and the socially incompetent lawbreakers. We do this with automobiles without a lot of complaint, we are apparently too emotionally undeveloped to do the same with firearms.

          • independent thinker

            ” Drunks, addicts, children, known morons, the infirm and the socially incompetent lawbreakers.”
            All of these you mention drive automobiles and cause accidents so your point is useless. There are laws against carrying while drunk, under the influence of other drugs, children possessing firearms except under certain conditions, etc. now.

          • Publius.Polis

            I agree with you that we must regulate the right to possess firearms. So what is the problem?

          • independent thinker

            First I never said I agreed (or disagreed) with the regulations on firearms. Second you are the one calling for laws that are already on the books.

          • CommonSense4America

            It must really chap your @$$ that criminals don’t follow your stupid laws. We already have the Ten most perfect Laws. IF followed, we would not need any others. They are called ‘The Ten Commandments’. “Thou shall not murder”, some say “kill”, but I believe the original, in English, was murder. That would take care of guns, knives, hammers, hands, etc., etc..

          • independent thinker

            Common, in the old English it was kill however kill back then meant murder as we say today. If they meant to kill something (such as a deer, bird, rat, or whatever)they used Slay.

          • Publius.Polis

            Nah! there are 600+ “commandments”. the fact that criminals do not follow our laws is what defines them as criminals. And it doesn’t chap my ass since if there weren’t any criminals we wouldn’t need laws, even the stupid ones. You might be correct about “murder” except it was’t an English word that is in question. It is a Hebrew word and the closest English can get is “murder” . Killing is condoned in your bible and it is often a command from god. Far from perfect.

          • CommonSense4America

            I guess you are correct in that there is a symbiotic relationship between criminals, lawyers, and judges. What on earth would they do without each other?

          • sportshooter

            You don’t do a very good job of keeping them out of the hands of Idiots and law breakers. Last year Autos killed 40,000 people and almost half of those deaths were caused by someone breaking a law. You really should do your homework before you post, look up the stats at the NHTSB and the FBI and you will see that I am giving you the facts as they are. I also didn’t count suicides in the number I quoted so you cant count suicides in your figures for firearms, which are by the way continuing the downward trend even though gun ownership has risen by 20 plus percent. Your arguments don’t hold water, just like a bucket without a bottom.

          • paradoc2

            Yeah, no morons or reckless people drive cars. Do you wear a blindfold when your chauffeur takes you around town? Just say no to trolling pubis…

      • paulrph1

        Sorry you cannot understand the sarcasm. BTW the way it will turn out the same if they ban guns. Also, BTW if you bothered to read the rest of the statement not only the first part you might begin to understand.

    • Deborah G

      Stop this nonsensical “Banning” Alchol doesn’t kill , it is stupid people with ZERO personal responibility and a sickness that does. Guns don’t kill people any more than a kitchen knife jumps out of the drawer unprovocated LOL> The answer is NOT banning it is making people personally responsible for their behavior and NOT Allowing liberals to make the stupid rule.

      • paulrph1

        Sorry you cannot read the sarcasm either.

        • paradoc2

          Be honest, you could still hit a person center mass that was charging at you to do great physical harm or worse – even if you had a couple of drinks – right? ‘Alsholic’ people still need to stay alive too:-) I got it…

          • paulrph1

            Being honest, a person who is dead drunk might not be able to aim right and might kill someone they intended not too. Because you drink you do not need to defend the idiotic behavior. There are many problems with people getting soused out of their minds and it is usually not them that pays the price for their deviant behavior. Take for instance the person who gets drunk and decides to drive their way home, they always think they are in control of their faculties no matter what. Get in a wreck and kills themselves, some else, another driver, a pedestrian/ Many others suffer from the loss. Yes we should all act responsible but when does it start.
            Sorry you cannot understand the sarcasm either.

          • paradoc2

            So you either meant to misspell alcoholism as if one were impaired and slurring the word or you meant that with all the profits with alcohol, it would be very unlikely to revisit prohibition ever again.
            You are right that many overindulge and hurt / kill themselves and others. I don’t believe though that because a person has a drink, that person must refrain from defending an obvious attempt by another to take their life.

          • paulrph1

            Where are you coming from? I never meant, said or implied such a ridiculous statement. “a person has a drink, that person must refrain from defending an obvious attempt by another to take their life”. The word “alsholism” was a typo but now that you bring it up, I do like the slur effect. Just like Deborah G spelt alcohol as “Alchol” but I never caught that one either.
            The statement that brought up all of this was the statement in the original article was “With the problems of violence, alcoholism, and high suicide rates on college campuses, they argue, is now really the time to let more guns loose on campus?” I simply stated that if alcoholism is the problem do not blame guns but blame the alcohol. Put the blame where it is and do not use it as an excuse to ban guns.

          • paradoc2

            Thanks for the explanation. I don’t think that a person would mind if another stopped a killer from murdering their kid with whatever it takes in scenarios like we’ve seen – sometimes sarcasm can confuse. All kids on campus aren’t necessarily drunks that would have a problem with acting responsibly when confronted with violence is my point, so the ‘one-law-fits-all’ sophistry is a nonstarter for me.

          • paulrph1

            You are right on the sarcasm think but that is the way my mind thinks. Sorry for any confusion but to a person who thinks like me, it is a natural but to others I can see how it will confuse them. But sarcasm adds spice to live. There are always hints in sarcasm though like with mine when I said that will never happen. The libs are always finding an excuse to ban guns and will seem to come up with anything and try to bend it to fit even when it doesn’t. They have no justifiable reason for banning guns that is why the other excuses.

  • cardmaster1

    Most Common Sense legislation proposed so far!! Hope it Sails through!! Please note the reference to “Common Sense”. That is the Liberals favorite phrase, but their views are so far from Common Sense as to be Ludicrous! There is NO common sense in Denying anyone the Fundamental RIGHT to Self Defense! When the Liberal politicians give up Their Heavily Armed security details the rest of us Might consider it. Uh, NOT!!

  • POPPIE

    Florida should have the whole state CCW without any Fed.or State permits its our right !!

    • Buck O’Fama

      The Colorado Senate just passed a bill allowing Constitutional Carry (open OR concealed) without a state permit. If it becomes law, CO will become the sixth free state. Write to your state legislators and ask !!!

    • paradoc2

      True that also on a national level: good enough for Vermont and Arizona, then it’s good enough for the rest of non-prohibited US citizens period! Constitutional carry nationwide makes sense. We the people should have a ballot referendum on that so nanny government will finally get off our backs about ‘permission slips’ for inalienable human rights that predate our constitutions – whether local, state, or national.

  • myfordtruck

    I wish that they would make Fl a open carry state and let every body with permits to open carry if they want to

  • TRW077

    Florida will get it done.

  • Buck O’Fama

    The response to “arming the assailants, too” needs one more sentence to drive the point home (perhaps in italics 🙂 – –

    The assailants who want to be armed ALREADY ARE.

  • John S. Lisby

    2nd amendment at work. USA GUN PERMIT ISSUED 12/15/1791 NEVER EXPIRES .Thomas Jefferson said, let your pistol be your constant companion on your walks.

  • CYNICALZ

    In the shoes of students receiving fire, duck and run does not appeal as a viable vantage point. It will happen again. Do we wait for responders or provide students armed security. Remember that our government who wants to disarm us is the primary cause of division among us.

  • ed

    THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM NEEDS LEST GOVERNMENT, GLAD THAT FLORIDA IS STARTING TO RELAX ON GUNS

  • John S. Lisby

    2nd AMENDMENT USA GUN PERMIT ISSUED 12/15/1791, NEVER EXPIRES . THOMAS JEFFERSON SAID ,”LET YOUR PISTOL BE YOUR CPOMPANION ON YOUR WALKS”
    MOLON LABE.

  • John S. Lisby

    THE POLICE AND OR COURTS CANNOT PROTECT US . THEY CAN ONLY TAKE REPORTS AFTER THE CRIME IS COMMITED . IT IS UP TOO EVERY CITIZEN TO PROTECT ONES SELF AND OTHERS SHOULD THE NEED ARISE. SI VIS PACEM PARABELLUM. [LOOK THIS UP]

  • BuddyBoy53

    The assailants are already armed Jack-off!

  • billybob

    Since Marjorie Sanfilippo is a Psyche professor I’ll grant her some lenience on her stupid comments. Her living is made talking about feelings not facts. Fact is criminals don’t give a sh*t about laws, allowing CCL’s to carry on campus will arm only the law abiding. The assailants are already carrying!
    Gun-free zones are defense-free zones. Also all CCL holders are at least 21 years old and among the most law abiding of all citizens!

  • DNS Signs

    Its called concealed carry for a reason. The only time I’m disarmed is when entering a government building that has metal detectors. Otherwise those gun free zone signs mean nothing to me. I’m not going to follow the liberal agenda that has no regard for my safety. The second amendment is the ONLY amendment that tells the government that it shall not infringe. Those words were put there for a reason. The reason is the people who wrote it knew that out of all the restrictions placed on government the second amendment would be the first one government would try to restrict.

    • CommonSense4America

      And without the 2nd Amendment, the rest will also fall.

      • paradoc2

        It’s the ‘teeth’ that defend the other nine and that’s why the LDA (Liberal Dental Association ) want so badly to extract it.

    • Publius.Polis

      Not entirely true. ALL of the 1st 10 amendments enumerate those rights that are retained by the citizen. They are not “granted” by any one and thus they supersede all of the rest of the constitution. Retained rights are not subject to annulment or abridgement. The 2nd amendment is the only one to imply the regulation of a retained right.

  • J. Ernst

    Back to the issue, Having once been a youth in college, I don’t think it is ever necessary to “carry” on campus unless there’s a shooters class or a demonstration of shootist’s competition or such.
    There are more psychologically “troubled” youth than you can shake a stick at. Sometimes they “grow out” of their personal fears, tribulations, angst, etc…
    ALSO, Colleges are DIFFERENT WORLDS than what adults navigate. Colleges have their OWN “law enforcement” officials. Colleges have their own hierarchy and PROTOCOLS that are somewhat “immune” from REAL society and the consequences associated therewith. Colleges have their own “counselors” to supposedly deal with the emotional troubles that SOME students deal with. For instance; date rape. When is it rape or quasi-consensual sex. TOUGH SUBJECT when young teens are intoxicated and UNSURE of each others motives.
    Same with weapons.
    Back in the day when I was on campus, there was a liberal approach to handgun carry on campus. It was largely frowned upon because it was MOSTLY deemed unnecessary…unless you were in ROTC! The college knew there were some profs and students that “carried”. I had my share of potentially hazardous confrontations with other students. My weapons were; books, pens, pencils, sliderule, my knees, feet, fists, elbows…..you get the picture. My motto was do or die if need be. AND, there never WAS a need for “do or die” … but it’s ALWAYS good to have SOME INDEPTH MANTRA.
    Therefore, PERSONALLY, I’m glad I wasn’t packing BECAUSE things ESCALATE!!! When people in violent confrontations become winded, things usually become LESS confrontational. Back in my day…even if there WAS a fist altercation, there were enough cooler heads that would intervene when it was obvious that there could be irreparable harm done if said fight were to continue.
    There will ALWAYS be an argument for Carrying!
    I just don’t think college campuses need it.
    If our society is sooo fragile on campuses then make more HIGHER learning ONLINE!

    • paradoc2

      Fists and feet sure didn’t help much at Virginia Tech a few years back. You are only replicating the “wild west” mantra that the liberals predicted over general population CCW law enactments in various states that produced the complete opposite result time and time again. More guns equaled less crimes every time.

  • jdbixii

    The politician-social engineers among us would do well to consider the demographic history of the country since WWII and the reasons for which crime rates in places like Florida have been an impetus and a justification for exercise of Second Amendment Rights. Like it or not, (and this is not a xenophobic or anti-immigration perspective), crime rates have increased with the influx of diverse minorities. Like it or not, the antidote is always obedience to the law, morality and ethics and that is what is lacking among the diverse minorities whose abilities to communicate, be educated, achieve and earn a living, thus reducing or eliminating the need or justification for committing crimes in satisfaction of needs, are not being fully realized. The inefficiency of government to address a problem but not actually solve the problem is what is responsible for instances of crime. This makes people dissatisfied with government. We pay for it even when it fails to achieve what is needed to maintain a particular quality of life, to which, we believe, we are entitled. This does not involve government handouts. It involves basic security, and that is where no infringement on Second Amendment Rights is constitutional, constitutionality, being defined as “that which can be done,” whether or not it is in accordance with the law. Just ask your president!!

  • LeSellers

    Marjorie Sanfilippo said, “It is mere speculation and ignorance of statistical probability to assert that armed students are the reason why shootings don’t happen on campuses. Proponents will tell you that allowing conceal [sic]carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.”

    What this idiot ignores (and doubtless purposefully) is that the assailants are already armed! It’s the victims who are powerless under her preferred regime.

    Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

  • Dick Schwerin

    gun free zones are not or have never been safe.. its about time people wake up too this fact

  • ADRoberts

    I wish it would happen. But we all know just how determined the gun controllers are. They do not care about safety. To them, WE are the problem. They KNOW that all the laws in place already are broken every time a perp gets a gun and kills. But they ignore FACTS and continue to push. That is because SAFETY is not the desire. It is confiscation of guns from good people so we won’t be able to fight back against the abuses of the government.

  • DERRELLCRAWFORD

    We have the most lawless administration in the history of America ,We will do what all freedom loving Americans do ,Fight for what is being tried by this illegal immigrant that hijacked the presidency is trying to do .Rest assured ever real American will fight and shed blood to save our country. If he and his cult think they will lead us too gas chambers or cut our heads off they will not prevail .The real instigators of this abomination are basic cowards ,they mistake kindness for weakness ,I thank them for what they have achieved ;they have awakened the real freedom loving people .And now it is time for sacrifice as we all did in world war 11.

  • Tom Wittlief

    Re:Prof Sanfilipo’s comment re: permitting students to carry on campus would be … arming their … armed assailants … ? Huh ???? So, allowing possesion of hammers is what causes bad roofing jobs ? Modern firearms and ammunition … EXIST ! The KNOWLEDGE of how to design them … EXISTS !
    The RESOURCES to make them … EXISTS !
    The KNOWLEDGE of how to successfully combine the two … EXISTS !
    Humanity must adapt to these facts, or …
    GOD bless you and yours.

  • dean

    The 2nd amendment doesn’t say students aren’t allowed to defend their selves.They also are free people, therefore they can be armed.

  • ArmyAviator

    How’s that “DRUG FREE” School Zones workin’ out for America?

    • paradoc2

      Great if you are a drug dealer. At least as well as the gun free zones are for the mass murderers for sure – LOL!

  • Rudy McGillvray

    I seriously would not be bothered by anyone carrying a pistol on his hip or anywhere else as part of a law? That says he/she may carry any weapon they like whereever they like. And instead of spending our tax dollars to take down the “gun free zone” signs leave them up, in order that we may get more criminals off the streets.

  • Greg S

    The meeting of the RIGHT WING, NRA A$$ LICKING FEARMONGERING SIMPLE MINDED, TED NUGET, THANK YOU FOR MY LAUGH OF THE DAY :)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • paradoc2

      Good for you! Now go shelter in place like your hoplophobic democrat leaders suggest, so the big bad guns don’t get you – and don’t forget to take your meds.

  • phil62

    Liberals don’t have heads that anything can be wrapped around. Hence, they don’t have brains enough to pour piss out of a boot. They think the word “stupid” is a badge of honor and they wear it proudly.

    • Publius.Polis

      Could you define “irony”?

      • phil62

        Actually it might be a fact that everything a liberal does is ironic.

      • paradoc2

        Frying pans are irony. They can also be stainless steel or aluminum. Why do you ask troll?

  • J. Bailey

    Folks – we already have ‘gun registration’, except only HI, AZ & VT… A CCL IS ‘registration’ and an INFRINGEMENT requirement by government … 2011 … NOW the government is DICTATING where & when Americans can protect themselves … See how duplicitous this has been…?

  • grin-n-barrett

    It is a fact. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, period.

  • bo navajo

    I live in fl graduated from UF. There are a lot of night class where students are in their labs until midnight. Then must walk back to their dorms or off campus housing. This is very dangerous for any student much less females. There has been rapes and strong arm robberies plus home invasions. Students must be able to protect themselves. So unless the Universites are willing to provide armed excorts for every student who needs one, then having students obtain a concealed carry permit and be allowed to carry it on campus is the best way to protect one’s self.

  • tinkerunique

    FBI stats say that less gun CONTROL results in lower crime rates. FACT !

  • Lizard

    Such BS Obama dream is to take away American peoples guns .. Then Obama can really show us Hitler is in his family tree just few branches down.. Seems strange Obama can even sign such law when he can not pass E-verify

  • carl

    Definitely show be able to carry on campus they’re like sitting ducks right now

  • Charley C.

    I feel gun free zones should have been canceled a long time ago. they are worthless at best.

  • Melton Lynn Bates

    it’s about time the criminals don’t pay attention to the law they all have a gun no matter what they get their guns illegally blackmarket stock problem the law abiding citizen have to jump through hoops now the gun free zone will be a gun having them the criminals will have to think twice and the citizen I have the jump on them

  • paradoc2

    Marge Sanfillipino’s statement says it all – ‘it will arm assailants too’. Hard to believe she has a college degree, let alone is a professor, blurting out logically challenged sophistry like that…

    • PAUL JOSEPH

      The assailants arwe already armed

      • paradoc2

        She must think the assailants weren’t coming on campus armed because they didn’t want to break any gun laws when they would rape or murder people there. Now they won’t care.
        Wait a minute, aren’t rape or murder much more serious crimes that you can get decades to life in prison or worse for? Would it really matter to a rapist or murderer to have five or ten more years added to such potentially long sentences because they disregarded a gun-free zone law? I doubt that would be the case.

        Someone should have told her of that possibility before she made that statement.
        I hope sure she doesn’t feel stupid now – probably won’t, I believe she is a progressive.

  • Paladin

    Lib’s gonads (what little they have) are shriveling at an alarming rate… they can’t imagine a society in general disagreement with their sophist philosophy.

  • J. Ernst

    For those of you who argue the V. Tech incident with the notion that more weaponized “students” means less crimes ON CAMPUS, totally eliminates the STUDENT’S ability to THINK before ACTING.
    When ONE individual designs to wreak havoc upon others, ON A CAMPUS, the situation is already “contained” for one. The next “step” is to figure out who and where the PERP is!!!
    If there were TRAINED “carriers”, (you know REAL marksmen/women who actually spend MONEY practicing at the range), on that campus, then MAYBE they would be in the same proximity to return fire and MAYBE hit their target! TRULY a hollywood scenario if ever there was one!
    HOW MANY young men and women truly have the where-with-all to stay calm, breath properly and squeeeze the trigger?
    I’m all for training young GIRLS AND BOYS to handle firearms so that when they reach YOUNG ADULTHOOD they are properly acclimated to KNOWING when to hold ’em, when to fold ’em.
    That doesn’t mean I want my grandchildren packin’ UNTIL they have the MATURITY to actually BE ADULT-MINDED!!! Otherwise, in a CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT, there are going to be waaay too many ricochet’s! I wouldn’t want to be a “non-carrier” in that case!!!
    NOR would I want to be on the back side of a CIVIL LAWSUIT for having KILLED some innocent by-stander with a F’in RICOCHET.
    The arguments for Campus carriers is way too open-ended for simple discourse. AND the simplistic arguments for VERY SHORT, VERY SIMPLISTIC SCENARIOS associated therewith are equally easy to promote or dismiss.
    I have never been active military, law enforcement or security employed. NOR have I been on the OTHER SIDE of the law, as in criminal intent or action!!! I HAVE been shot at and have returned fire to save my life to escape…MORE than once! I don’t relish any situation where I need put myself at risk or return fire.
    I don’t think I would want to be at a college where I would sense an UNSAFE environment and PAY DEARLY TO BE THERE EITHER! After all, COLLEGES are supposed to be for HIGHER LEARNING and PERSONAL GROWTH!!!
    Then again, the Wright brothers weren’t “college educated”…………………………….

  • Skip

    Marjorie Sanfilippo says, “It is mere speculation and ignorance of statistical probability to assert that armed students are the reason why shootings don’t happen on campuses. Proponents will tell you that allowing conceal carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.” OK Marjorie, now I’LL point out the obvious: THE ASSAILANTS ARE ALREADY ARMED.

  • Oingo Boingo

    Sanfilippo at Eckerd College is a Pretzel Logic authority who often blathers to her victims…er, students…on the role of Self Delusion in Political Correctness.